Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Court-Monitored Probe into Child Deaths Linked to Toxic Cough Syrup

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a court-monitored investigation into the deaths of several children allegedly caused by consumption of toxic cough syrup.

The PIL was filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari, who argued that the rising number of such deaths required a centralized probe by a single, competent agency, as states were blaming each other and no consistent accountability was being ensured.

A bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (correction: should be B.R. Gavai as per your source) and Justice K. Vinod Chandran rejected the plea. Advocate Tiwari appeared in person and submitted that this was not the first incident involving contaminated medicine, and a unified approach was urgently needed.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the petition, arguing that Tiwari had approached the court based only on media reports and not substantive evidence. He assured the bench that concerned state governments, including Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, and others, were already taking corrective measures.

Following the submissions, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea, declining to entertain the request for judicial monitoring of the investigation.

The petition had also demanded a complete overhaul of India’s drug safety regulatory system, citing multiple instances where contaminated cough syrups allegedly led to severe health complications and deaths among children.

According to the petition, the first major incident was reported in Chhindwara district, where several children developed kidney failure after consuming the syrup. Similar suspected cases emerged in Maharashtra and Rajasthan, raising the death toll and national concern.

Tiwari argued that fragmented responses by individual states were insufficient, and a national-level probe was necessary to address recurring pharmaceutical negligence.

Despite the gravity of the issue, the court maintained that the matter should be handled by state authorities, and judicial oversight was not warranted at this stage.